Infected pancreatic necrosis: drain first, but do it better

[A modified method for percutaneous drainage of acute necrotic collections in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis]

OBJECTIVE

To develop a modified method for percutaneous drainage of acute necrotic collections in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Minimally invasive surgical technologies were used in 74 patients with infected acute necrotic collections at the Krasnodar Regional Clinical Hospital No. 2 between 2017 and 2019. Of these, 59 (79.7%) people underwent percutaneous drainage as a final treatment. In 11 (14.9%) patients, video sequestrectomy through the fistula was additionally used to increase efficiency of percutaneous drainage.

RESULTS

PCD in our modification implies delivery of double-lumen drains 26-32 Fr in the same plane to zones of necrosis, their programmed replacement for prevention of obstruction and flexible endoscopy for control of pathological process. Local purulent-necrotic parapancreatitis occurred in 31 (41.9%) patients, widespread parapancreatitis - in 43 (58.1%) patients. There were 339 minimally invasive interventions. Laparotomy was required in 4 (5.4%) patients. Incidence of perioperative complications was 10.6%, mortality - 16.2%.

CONCLUSION

A modified percutaneous drainage method may be used as final surgical treatment in 79.7% of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis.

When Should We Perform Endoscopic Drainage and Necrosectomy for Walled-Off Necrosis?

Endoscopic drainage and necrosectomy are now accepted treatment approaches for patients with symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). The current recommendations advocate step-up approaches for the treatment of symptomatic WON. Previous recommendations stipulated that endoscopic intervention should be delayed until more than four weeks after the onset. Recent data on early drainage have been increasing and this option might be considered in well-encapsulated cases, but the percutaneous route is preferred if the drainage is performed within two weeks after onset or in nonencapsulated cases. Recently, additional drainage methods, such as the multiple gateway technique and multiple stent placement, have been developed to open up multiple dead spaces in the WON cavity. Endoscopic necrosectomy could be performed via the transluminal route or percutaneous route after failed initial and additional drainage procedures. The use of novel lumen-apposing stents is a promising treatment option that could reduce the number of steps, the procedure time, and the overall number of necrosectomies.

Role of percutaneous catheter drainage as primary treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Necrotizing pancreatitis has morbidity and mortality rates exceeding most of the other acute medical emergencies despite the best possible medical and surgical care. Early surgical intervention has a high operative risk.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective open-label study was designed to evaluate the role of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) of pancreatic necrosis as primary treatment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis. An ultrasound/computed tomography-guided drainage was performed with 10 or 12 Fr catheters using a 0.35 mm guide wire, irrespective of whether necrosis was infected or not. Patients were followed up for organ dysfunction, need for surgical intervention, and survival at week 8.

RESULTS

A total of 20 (65% males) patients who had acute necrotizing pancreatitis with varied etiology were enrolled in the present study. Of these patients, 9 (45%) did not need surgery after PCD. The remaining 11 (55%) patients showed significant reversal of organ failure after PCD insertion (p<0.05 for improvement in serum creatinine, need for mechanical ventilation, and decline in C-reactive protein). Survival at week 8 was 95%. PCD was well tolerated with only two catheter-related complications being observed.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous catheter drainage can be a primary treatment option for necrotizing pancreatitis. In addition, it helps to stabilize critically ill patients and delay the surgical procedure to beyond 4 weeks to improve the surgical outcomes.

Novel strategies for the treatment of acute pancreatitis based on the determinants of severity

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common disease for which a specific treatment remains elusive. The key determinants of the outcome from AP are persistent organ failure and infected pancreatic necrosis. The prevention and treatment of these determinants provides a framework for the development of specific treatment strategies. The gut-lymph concept provides a common mechanism for systemic inflammation and organ dysfunction. Acute and critical illness, including AP, is associated with intestinal ischemia and drastic changes in the composition of gut lymph, which bypasses the liver to drain into the systemic circulation immediately proximal to the major organ systems which fail. The external diversion of gut lymph and the targeting of treatments to counter the toxic elements in gut lymph offers novel approaches to the prevention and treatment of persistent organ failure. Infected pancreatic necrosis is increasingly treated with less invasive techniques, the mainstay of which is drainage, both endoscopic and percutaneous. Further improvements will occur with the strategies to accelerate liquefaction and through a fundamental re-design of drains, both of which will increase drainage efficacy. The determinants of severity and outcome in patients admitted with AP provide the basis for innovative treatment strategies. The priorities are to translate the gut-lymph concept to clinical practice and to improve the design and active use of drains for infected complications of AP.

A Low Impact Approach to Infected Pancreatic Necrosis: Review of a Case Series

BACKGROUND

Infected pancreatic necrosis develops in approximately one third of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality rates. Historically, open necrosectomy has been the mainstay of management for these patients but is in itself a morbid procedure. In recent times, minimally invasive techniques have evolved to allow a less invasive approach to these patients. Percutaneous catheter drainage of infected pancreatic necrosis is a technique that has been demonstrated to be potentially useful in the treatment of this group of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The aim of this study was to review outcomes and define the technique of percutaneous catheter drainage in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis. All patients with infected pancreatic necrosis were exclusively treated with percutaneous drainage over the study period. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, number and size of drains, drainage technique and drain management, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, nutritional requirements, and morbidity and mortality data were evaluated for the patient group. Computed tomography (CT) scans were used to assess the progression of the disease process and the effectiveness of the treatment.

RESULTS

There were nine patients with infected pancreatic necrosis in this case series between 2007 and 2012, all of whom were treated with percutaneous catheter drainage alone. The median APACHE II score in the patient group was 11, with a median stay in the ICU of 3 d and median hospital stay of 41 d. On average, nine CT scans were performed per patient during the hospital admission. A median of three drains were inserted per patient, and in the course of the study, it was evident that the larger drain size was the most effective. In eight of the nine patients in the group, complications developed that were both directly and indirectly related to the pancreatitis, but were effectively managed. There were no deaths.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous catheter drainage as a stand-alone intervention is an alternative strategy for infected pancreatic necrosis and can be used with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates in this challenging group of patients.

Surgery for Acute Pancreatitis

Surgery for acute pancreatitis has undergone significant changes over the last 3 decades. A better understanding of the pathophysiology has contributed to this, but the greatest driver for change has been the rise of less invasive interventions in the fields of laparoscopy, endoscopy and radiology. Surgery has a very limited role in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. The most common indication for intervention in acute pancreatitis is for the treatment of complications and most notably the treatment of infected walled off necrosis. Here, the step-up approach has become established, with prior drainage (either endoscopic or percutaneous) followed by delay for maturing of the wall and then debridement by endoscopic or minimally invasive surgical methods. Open surgery is only indicated when this approach fails. Other indications for surgery in acute pancreatitis are for the treatment of acute compartment syndrome, non-occlusive intestinal ischaemia and necrosis, enterocutaneous fistulae, vascular complications and pseudocyst. Surgery also has a role in the prevention of recurrent acute pancreatitis by cholecystectomy. Despite the more restricted role, surgeons have an important contribution to make in the multidisciplinary care of patients with complicated acute pancreatitis.

Is necrosectomy obsolete for infected necrotizing pancreatitis? Is a paradigm shift needed?

In 1886, Senn stated that removing necrotic pancreatic and peripancreatic tissue would benefit patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Since then, necrosectomy has been a mainstay of surgical procedures for infected necrotizing pancreatitis (NP). No published report has successfully questioned the role of necrosectomy. Recently, however, increasing evidence shows good outcomes when treating walled-off necrotizing pancreatitis without a necrosectomy. The literature concerning NP published primarily after 2000 was reviewed; it demonstrates the feasibility of a paradigm shift. The majority (75%) of minimally invasive necrosectomies show higher completion rates: between 80% and 100%. Transluminal endoscopic necrosectomy has shown remarkable results when combined with percutaneous drainage or a metallic stent. Related morbidities range from 40% to 92%. Single-digit mortality rates have been achieved with transluminal endoscopic necrosectomy, but not with video-assisted retroperitoneal necrosectomy series. Drainage procedures without necrosectomy have evolved from percutaneous drainage to transluminal endoscopic drainage with or without percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy access for laparoscopic instruments. Most series have reached higher success rates of 79%-93%, and even 100%, using transcystic multiple drainage methods. It is becoming evident that transluminal endoscopic drainage treatment of walled-off NP without a necrosectomy is feasible. With further refinement of the drainage procedures, a paradigm shift from necrosectomy to drainage is inevitable.

Interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis: an overview of current approaches

The management of necrotizing pancreatitis has undergone a paradigm shift toward minimally invasive techniques for necrosectomy, obviating the need for open necrosectomy in most cases. There is increasing evidence that minimally invasive approaches including a step-up approach that incorporates percutaneous catheter or endoscopic transluminal drainage, followed by video-assisted retroperitoneal or endoscopic debridement are associated with improved outcomes over traditional open necrosectomy for patients with infected necrosis. A recent international multidisciplinary consensus conference emphasized the superiority of minimally invasive approaches over standard surgical approaches. The success of these techniques depends on concerted efforts of a multidisciplinary team of interventional endoscopists, radiologists, intensivists and surgeons dedicated to the management of severe acute pancreatitis and its complications. This review provides an overview of minimally invasive techniques for management of necrotizing pancreatitis, including indications, timing, advantages and disadvantages.